AC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 510 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2389 times:
I've just had this image rejected for "colour" and "editing" (a first for me, no idea what that's about). I know it's only an AC 319, but I like the effect of the dark sky, evening light, and fall colours for the trees ...
On an otherwise dark/dreary evening, the sun peeked through for about 5 min resulting in some wicked lighting that hilighted the plane and the trees changing colours (from summer to fall) in the background, all contrasting nicely with the dark sky. This lighting is the only reason why I snapped the pic of an otherwise "normal" subject.
As for the editing reject ... yikes. No idea what that's all about. Sufficed to say that I didn't do anything out of the ordinary during my editing ...
Anyway, your opinions ... ? Should I appeal or let it go?
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
Did you use Neatimage or any other grain reduction technique? Some of the details on the grass and trees looks a little funky.
AC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
No neatimage or similar. I followed the same workflow as I always do.
My only guess is that maybe the screener maybe doesn't live in a climate where these tree colours are common in nature (during season change from summer to fall) and therefore thinks I artificially altered them?
The dark sky certainly accentuates the effect, but as I said it's due to the fact it was a dark/cloudy day with the sun coming out only very briefly. Maybe the screener thought I altered the sky to make it dark?
I don't know ... perhaps if a screener might be able to provide some input?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4738 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2368 times:
I agree. The colours, although vibrant, look stunningly natural. The sky just goes that extra distance to highlight it beautifully. I live in the UK and as you can probably guess, scenes like this will begin to appear all over in the coming weeks.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I rejected it.
Peter, you know I am a big fan of your shots and have commented on them pubilcy.
Have a look at the strip of aluminium under the front cabin door, as well as the starboard wingtip.
The color of these two items leads me to believe that the color has been "jacked up." Other screeners were in agreement, which is a pity as it is a nice shot.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Peter something must have gone wrong during your edit.
Look at the wingtips and the stripe below the front door; there's some turquoise color that surely doesn't belong there. Also the plane looks kinda pink on the top and at the rear.
To be honest I don't really know for sure what might have gotten that strange effect but re-check your original picture and if the colors are ok there just try a new edit. I'm sure it will have a good acceptance chance if you correct the color issue.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2344 times:
I have to let you guys know it is the metal that is the problem. I have seen multiple times that on Air Canada Airbus aircraft the strip of metal under the door will turn a bright green when light hits it. Case and point:
I actually warned Chad as he took this shot to look out for the effect, and he caught it perfectly. As for the wing I have seen this in photos of my own as well. It is a nice shot, and hopefully it will get in.
-Matt
Ranger703 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
This is a beautiful shot and just goes to prove that screeners,are not always right. You have captured a perfect moment just when the light produces the effect as shown in Chads image,not many times or places in the world that you could capture it so vividly though.Top shot,its one of the reasons I like autumn so much.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Good observation Matthew!
I looked around a bit and the Air Canada livery does indeed have some strange green stripes which turn into bright turquoise under some lighting conditions.
Close-up of those stripes:
9V From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 6): The color of these two items leads me to believe that the color has been "jacked up." Other screeners were in agreement, which is a pity as it is a nice shot.
Tell you what Clickhappy, you are a genius! I never would have spotted that!
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2287 times:
I would appeal, saying that the screener rejected because he thought the strips were artificial, when they are really part of the plane.
AC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2270 times:
Thanks to all for your comments, especially Clickhappy for his screener input (and nice compliment)!
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 6): Have a look at the strip of aluminium under the front cabin door, as well as the starboard wingtip.
The color of these two items leads me to believe that the color has been "jacked up."
Ahhh. Gotcha. I can see how this might look strange to folks who aren't familiar with this phenomenon regarding AC aircraft. However, as others have already mentioned, it is something that occurs naturally under certain lighting conditions. I've noticed it most frequently in the evenings, but I've seen it under other circumstances too.
AC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2204 times:
Just an update: After appealing, the original rejection was upheld citing the same reasons as before ... "colour" and "editing" (yes, "editing" again even though I explained the natural phenomenon about the green strips). Fell on deaf ears I guess.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting AC888YOW (Reply 17): Just an update: After appealing, the original rejection was upheld citing the same reasons as before ... "colour" and "editing" (yes, "editing" again even though I explained the natural phenomenon about the green strips). Fell on deaf ears I guess.
Anyway, this one is put to rest.
Peter it wasn't just the green stripes; the picture as a whole just looks kinda oversaturated. I'd try a new edit and go a little easier on the colors.
AC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 18): the picture as a whole just looks kinda oversaturated
I accept this explanation and consider it to be the cause for the "colour" rejection. I take issue with the "editing" portion of the rejection as it is effectively an accusation about something I know I didn't do. I haven't been a member of these boards for very long but I've been submitting images for a few years and have never even thought about doing something "illegal" to one of my images. I value my untarnished reputation as a photographer, which is why I feel the need to defend it in this case.
Anyway, I never have made it a habit of questioning my rejections, and am not starting now. I only ever posted this thread so as to seek opinions on why I received the "editing" rejection, firstly because I'd never received it before and secondly because I know very well that I didn't edit the image in "an unacceptable manner".
The explanation given to me for the "editing" rejection was the green strips (which I understand can appear "funny" to someone unfamiliar with it), a phenomenon proven to be natural not only be me but more importantly by other neutral, unbiased parties as well. After explaining this in my reason for appeal (and providing the link to this thread), to have "editing" come back as a rejection reason (without any further explanation) is a bit of a smack.
That's all, no big deal really. Not trying to cause a fuss ... the case is closed. I'll leave this one just for me.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2172 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting AC888YOW (Reply 19): I accept this explanation and consider it to be the cause for the "colour" rejection. I take issue with the "editing" portion of the rejection
As far as I understand it, the editing rejection doesn't necessarily mean that screeners think you did something "illegal" but just that at some point in your edit something might have gone wrong or you just used an acceptable tool too extensively. Like the saturation tool; saturating a picture is allowed but if used too extensively the shot becomes unacceptable for A.net. I think this was the case here though I can't be sure without seeing the original shot.
TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54 Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2140 times:
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 20): As far as I understand it, the editing rejection doesn't necessarily mean that screeners think you did something "illegal" but just that at some point in your edit something might have gone wrong or you just used an acceptable tool too extensively. Like the saturation tool; saturating a picture is allowed but if used too extensively the shot becomes unacceptable for A.net. I think this was the case here though I can't be sure without seeing the original shot.
Prefect explanation Thierry, and well put.
TZ
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 510 posts, 
From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4738 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, 
As for the wing I have seen this in photos of my own as well. It is a nice shot, and hopefully it will get in.
From Malta, joined Mar 2006, 394 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
